Obama Endorses Jon Stewart‘s ’Restore Sanity’ Rally
- Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:18pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
RICHMOND, Va. — “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart has won some high-level backing for his “Rally to Restore Sanity” next month in Washington: President Barack Obama.
Stewart says the Oct. 30 rally is for people who think the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard.
Obama raised the subject of the rally during a round-table Wednesday with residents of Richmond, Va.
Obama said he was “amused” by Stewart‘s rally and that it’s for people who expect some common sense and courtesy in their daily interactions.
The president said that having those voices lifted up is, as he put it, “really important.”
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 564 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 390 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 381 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 365 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 319 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 381 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 390 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 319 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 381 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (246)
GrassRootBeer
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:23pmWas anyone in that room interested in what he was saying? LOL! Watch the clip, everyone is bored out of their minds! LOL!
Report Post »badcamaro
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 2:41pmHELL I was board too.
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:20pmStewart is a non-entity, nothing more than a “wanna-be” comic who specializes in boring political bits designed to make idiots laugh. How pathetic it is then for the President of the United States to feel a need to bang on THAT door FOR HELP!
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:30amWell said.
Report Post »BigMuddy
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:17pmI’ve never witnessed a president who had such great contempt for the people. Truly, this man wants to control every aspect of our lives as he sees fit. What an arrogant little man. God sees fit to allow us to choose how to lead our lives. God lets us choose Him or reject Him. Obama will only allow us to worship Obama. He wants nothing less.
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:10pmWhat I think we , the American people should insist Obama and his followers should do is to reveal to America exactly what the “Progressive movement” stands for. They owe it to us so the people in this country understand what to fundamentaly change America actually means. What is the history of this movement and where does it lead? They keep hammering about the tea-party being a movement but fail to admit that they are an even bigger movement that has been working behind closed doors for a very long time. Why is that? Our movement is open and unafraid to clearly state what we stand for. Theirs only give out a little information bit by bit and is painted in a way that most people don’t begin to understand. The other day I was speaking to a friend of mine about the progressives. I asked her what a progressive is. This was her answer to this. ” A progressive stands for progress, going forward instead of backward. Progress is a good thing, look it up in the dictionary yourself.” I still love her dearly as a friend (I don‘t want to destroy her because we don’t see eye to eye) but I couldn’t believe that she would continue to support a movement that she knows nothing about. I urged her to take the time and find out for her-self. She admitted that she had heard Obama, Hillary, and many others state that they were progressives but hadn’t even thought about trying to find out what it actually meant. I think they use the democratic party as a cover-up. There are not many true democrats any more in politics. Those who want to remain true to their party as a citizen don’t even under-stand the changes that have occured or the direction their party has taken. I think the Progressives need to state their case and let the American people decide. We all know that it will never happen. The progressives hide behind a facade that believes the people are not intelligent enough to know what is best for them.
Report Post »uhadenoughyet.com
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:22pmNice Post Buddy
Report Post »kiwi1
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:58pmProgressive is not necessarily a good thing (i.e. progressive cancer). The Democrat Party has this progressive cancer (Communism) within their ranks. It is growing in their party and I do not think most of the Democrats realize that their party is being (or has been) taken over by the Communist Party.
Report Post »Tinylittletealeaf
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 11:39amI believe the rally on 10/2 will finally let the people know what their agenda is all about.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:09pmWell, Mr. Stewart is one of b-hussein-o’s few remaining super-fans, so it seems logical. Mr. Stewart’s prank is all about insulting and making fun of America and those who love her, which is one of the goals of b-hussein-o’s failed presidency, so it is fitting that these two radicals work together to cause as much damage as possible. Keep it up boys…the backlash is coming…very soon.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:21amI wish it was just about making fun of people.. the 8/28 was about God. This event is throwing cynicism and mocking upon God folks. God will NOT be mocked. You don‘t have to accept Him but don’t mock Him.
Report Post »mintyfresh
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 5:55pmi guess i am at a loss as how this rally, suggesting moderation and more tolerant conversatio as opposed to extremism, is in any way against christianity. i’m christian. proudly. and i think it would be terribly arrogant for me to claim that those who hold opposite political views are somehow godless. what makes you think you can do so?
Report Post »kiwi1
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:09pmObama must be one of the people that thinks Jon Stewart is a Serious News Person. Duh, BO …he’s a comedian…..you are looking to him for “Common Sense and Courtesy”. Wow, that explains a lot…. …More proof that we are in Very Serious Trouble.
Report Post »GrassRootBeer
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:03pmDaaahling! Don‘t you know DC Rally’s are ALL the rage this season! Rally’s are the new Black.
Report Post »Living In NYC
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:03pmGee, we had a comic represent a congressional committee chairman. That went so well then why not let a comic represent the executive branch as well!
I guess our elected government servants think they are on a 30 day comedy tour! Funny thing the joke is will be on them!
And you guys (the elected government servants) wonder why your approval ratings are so low, please get a mirror and look at yourselves! You are “The Joke”.
Report Post »ReGul
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:02pmComedy Central, must be the newest thing in hard-core news to the Obama administration these days, oh and Rolling Stone Mag too…hee hee…
Report Post »SnapTie
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:59pmDoesn’t Obama have anything else to do ?Something Presidential. I almost crapped my pants when i heard today Obama was giving praise to Oberman and maddow for getting out his message. I’ve been through 11 Presidents and i have never seen one trying to divide like this NUT.
Report Post »JD Carp
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:51pmImagine, the President of the USA endorsing a comedian for furthering his agenda. Now THAT’S comedy. I’d rather have a more serious president, one who thinks another attack on the US might be a bad thing, not something we can “rebound” from.
Report Post »Eagle07
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:11amObama just likes to hear himself talk (or is it read a teleprompter?)
Report Post »ReGul
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:57pmWhat bothers me so is that the President seems to be at war with the 1/2 of the American population who disagree with his ideology. I laugh at the comments he makes against Fox News, Tea Party, etc. don’t we matter? It’s so divisive. For Pete’s sake, at times it seems to be to be down right Treason. When I think back to W and all the fire storm of criticism, he never opening, repeatedly chastised American’s who disagreed with him. Has our President no decorum? It’s quite obviously he only partial to the 1st Amendment when it plays favor to his viewpoint. As John Bolton said, he’s really not fit to be President in my opinion. What a weasel.
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:54pmI think I’m going to though up
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:54pmStewart’s a smart comedian and he does advance a liberal agenda through his show. Unfortunately, many young people think it is a news show. It’s not.
Report Post »Sense and Sensibility
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 2:14amIt’s too bad that studies have shown that Stewart/Colbert fans are more up on their current affairs then those of the FNC: http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions.
Report Post »M633
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:10pmLately, the last couple of days atleast, Jon Stewart has been saying the same thing we are. It’s an interesting change. If you have time take a look at his show with Huffington, I thought it might make me ill, but Stewart was actually for us. Then today, I don’t recall the guest but the preamble :) was very much in line with what we have been saying. It was right on, it made me laugh, it included us. I guess they figured out we exist?
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:53pmThis may be the most honest thing President Obama has done since his inauguration. It is an admission and confirmation that Comedy Central’s audience is his specifically targeted demographic.
Report Post »maggiejo
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:52pmLoved the bored looks and yawing when he was talking. I wonder if it was mandatory for them to attend? I‘m sorry but that guy sure thinks he’s cool and the more he tries to come across as Mr. Cool – the dumber he sounds. Without his teleprompter he’s a babbling fool. I hope the rally is a huge success – I think I heard they got a permit for something like 25,000 people. That’s setting a high goal for themselves to beat, isn’t it? That way they can say that it was more of a success than they expected it to be.
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:49pmIf you would like to know what’s wrong with this country AND how to fix it, begin with these short videos:
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy0bE8qO-T4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv-YgYCq5XY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI0DPMoDAOM
RobR
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:48pmSeventy percent of the folks, including each and every kid in the above video, now agree Barack Obama will from here on out be affectionately referred to as ” America’s Ass Clown “.
I urge you other 30% to look up ass clown on Urban Dictionary and you too will agree.
Report Post »LLATPOH
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:48pmLike Stewart, Obama is all snark when he comes up to a philosophical difference in opinion. Plus, being snarky is “in.”
Just like Colbert’s “performance” on the hill… “Haha! Let’s all laugh about politics – they’re all stupid – blah blah blah snark snark blah blah.”
He endorses this becuase again, he wants the younger vote, nothing more. And snark attracts the ones that feel and don’t think. Just shows which side the simple mind will take.
Report Post »MCGIRV
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:01ami agree with you. The rally should be called an American Snarkathon !
Report Post »snowbrain
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:42pmWell perhaps Stewart can bring some comedic relief to the millions that view his satire on 10/30. I guess if we get a republican in the White House in 2012, at least Stewart will have someone else to focus on besides Glenn Beck.
Report Post »ClockKing
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:58pmYeah, they’ll laugh, and then when the system collapses (as planned), they’ll be crying and rioting like in Europe. Damn idiots. They don’t deserve freedom.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:41pm“the way our media is set up right now”…..our media is set up. we are set up. the government is set up.the world is set up—–set up to clash. i cant wait for that clash. america needs more conflict. we have grown too comfortable. too diluted. ——i dont know what that means, it just means we need to rattle the cages and piss on the floor more. nudge back. fight for the honest fun of fighting…
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:16amButhcer, Christ says Blesse3d is the peacemaker for he shall be called the children of God. He szet the example of peaceful resistence which was followed by Ghadi and MLK both men of faith. Lucifer is the author of conflict NOT Jesus,
Report Post »Tinylittletealeaf
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 11:29amMy response is to both Mrbutcher and Contrianthinker – I feel you are both correct!!! However, to Contrarian – I can‘t help but remember what happened to Jesus when he ’turned the other cheek.!’
Report Post »I believe under our present (hellish) circumstances, the old addage – “Walk SOFTLY but carry a big stick” would be more appropriate.. As I recall – the people in Germany also went ‘peacefully’ – to their graves.
Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 2:12pmTiny: Jesus, Ghadi and MLK had something that Glen urges to have. Peaceful RESISTENCE, not just lying down and let people walk over your liberties. !00% faith in God’s justice and love for us… TRUST. And expect miracles. God never told us, however, to ignore sin. Preparatiin to resist is NOT wrong. Use preemptive strikes and offensive war is not justified. Defensive war is a last resort and should only be done with God’s concurence..
Turn the other cheek BTW in the context given meant a sort of “sticks and stones” idea. Jesus is the Jehovah of the OT. There was plenty of defensive violence there. To understand the meaning of Jesus‘s word one must look at the context and how it fits in with all of God’s word.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:39pmThe question is, did he “support” it with DNC (or Sorros, or somehow tax) dollars?
Report Post »Not to worry, though, the would-be attendees of the “Restoring Sanity” rally are, by and large, lazy, unmotivated people. We will, however, be treated to crowd estimates of “hundreds of thousands” attendees by the same sources that estimated “Restoring Honor” attendance at @97,000. Should be fun to watch
ReGul
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:00pmAgreed, personally, I don’t see the motivation….it cost’s money…perhaps, they will be giving away free candy??? I wonder….mischief eve.
Report Post »tranquilrider
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:32amBroker
Report Post »“large, lazy, unmotivated people”. Really?
That‘s you’re argument against people who believe that treating each other with respect is important. Are you not the one hurling insults on this site all day with no intelligent debate? Calling people names seems to be your response to any opinion written on this site. Do yourself a favour and study the issues that we’re faced with and come up with an intelligent argument, people will finally respect you. You will feel better about yourself, I promise.
sbroccoli
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:38pmHmm… thought he didn’t pay attention to these things. At least that‘s what he said about Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally. That’s the FACTS. Draw your own conclusions.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:46pmLOL .. good point … how did he hear about this? … he’s never “seen” a TEA Party .. except to know they are violent and racist (SARCASM). Obama is a JOKE .. a very expensive- dangerous JOKE.
Report Post »skeptic
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:00amIt’s worse than that. He’s trying to deceive the public yet again. Obama endorses Stewart’s “moderate” rally, and not the communist/union/nbc rally. But all the commies endorse him, and he employs them in his administration. He speaks like moderate and moves like communist.
Report Post »eteme
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:35pmWhy the hell not?? Obama is a showman and actor… if you will. He loves comedy and he loves a centralized government so why not endorse this mock, farce rally put on by the false reporters and jokesters on Comedy Central…He is just delegitimizes himself each move he makes…
Report Post »drhopkins
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:32pmDid Glenn invent the concept of rallying at the Lincoln Memorial? Or do these guys have an original idea? Like the 8/28 rally supporters are supposed to be offended by another rally? There already was a counter rally right? Held at the same time? Here is a clue… we don’t care. We support your right to rally. Good. Great. Maybe it will help get more people involved in the political process.
Report Post »Rubicon
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:49pmI agree, maybe it’ll incite them to actually read The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. Hopefully if they do that they’ll begin to realize how badly this country is currently being managed.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:26amGetting more people involved in the political process is how we ended up with Obama. Getting more people involved in the political process has nearly destroyed the country. We basically have millions of pot-smoking, marxist-trained college kids with minimal life experience deciding elections. There should (but never will) be tight restrictions on who is allowed to vote, e.g., must own property, be at least 21 y.o., have no felony convictions of ANY sort, have no unpaid debts (yes, do a credit check), and just for good measure, must be able to pass a drug screening.
We should be encouraging all dunderheaded liberals (is that redundant) to “STAY IN THE VOTE” this November.
JJ Coolay
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:48amOwn property? Credit Check? Are you out of your freakin mind???
Report Post »Ok… maybe some sort of test to see how informed you are but spare me…. be a property owner and be debt free? Get real.
Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 2:05am@JJ
Report Post »I didn’t say debt free, you did. I said no UNPAID debts, i.e. deadbeats shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Concerning owning property, do you think it‘s right for people who don’t own property, i.e., renters, to vote on property tax increases? Think about it, if my proposed criteria were adopted as law, the ignorant riff-raff of society would actually be better off. If they wanted to have a say in politics, they would have to improve their lives, and they would appreciate their right to vote because they worked for it. As it stands, many people do not appreciate it. They take it for granted and consider it just another entitlement.
ellibeth0702
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:05amhaha. Okay redcoat, you wan’t to put stipulations to voting? You guys complain about how these marxist kids want to change and ruin (that’s your opinion) america. oh okay, how about we just go against THE FUNDAMENT PRINCIPLE IN WHICH AMERICA WAS FORMED UPON. You tea-baggers talk about not being represented. What a croc. All of the people who voted in the last election were represented. Just because your particular candidate didn‘t win does not mean you aren’t being represented, it just means that, your candidate lost. I guarantee if the country were to flip the other way, I would not be represented. It is disrespectful to champion with that slogan. I feel that though Obama does not stand for all the things I do, he is most representative of who I am. I am a 19 year old pro-life, pro-gay, pro-any-family-that-wants-to-consider-themselves-a-family, non-secularly religious girl, who has been black-listed by ever insurance company I have looked into due to a pre-existing genetic condition. Due to that medical condition I can never follow in the footsteps of so many in my family and join the military. Does any of this make me less of an American? No. Should I not be represented because many others do not align with my beliefs? Heck No. Every person has experiences that form who they are and mine have made me how I am. For that I cannot be punished.
carrera
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:49amEllibeth- Your hostility is unnerving. Settle down, relax a bit, your 19 years old and already playing the victim role. Show a little respect also young lady, “*********” as you very well know, is a perverted sexual term. Try to have an intelligent debate without hurling insults around, you just might learn something.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 11:08am@ELLIBETH
Report Post »One of my proposed voting criteria is that one must have attained the age of 21 years old. The reason for this is because young people are usually very impetuous and haven’t experienced “grown-up” life long enough to make wise decisions. That is why we have laws restricting consumption of harmful products to adults. You’re likely a very intelligent young lady, but are emotionally driven, and may have formed some of your opinions according to what is “cool”. I‘m suprised that you’re pro-life. Was that a typo? You know what you can’t do (e.g., join the military). Figure out what you CAN do and DO it. I’m going to give you a tidbit of wisdom that was given to me by someone very wise: Here is The purpose for YOUR life. It‘s so simple and important that you don’t need to write it down to remember it. Find a need and fill it.
JJ Coolay
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:12pmHuckabee: I do agree with you on some of your points. 21 years old, certainly. There’s definitely something to be said about the maturity level between 18 and 21.
Report Post »I also think felons should lose the right vote–at least those currently serving time. Those that have paid back their debt to society and prove rehabilitated can regain their right to vote.
I read too quickly the unpaid debt thing, thinking you meant any debt. I still don‘t think that’s a good idea because there’s too many variables like people that have lost their jobs. They lose the right to vote because they’ve defaulted on a car loan because they lost their job?
And I don’t agree with the property ownership rule. I have owned 2 homes but am currently renting. I don’t think that should be a stipulation, it would rule out far too many people that would otherwise have the right to vote.
Regardless, there needs to be a better system to educate voters. There is too great a portion of the population that is uninformed on many issues. Case in point: the video clip on the Black Ink and Quill blog. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. The voters on election day were embarrassingly misinformed or uninformed.
ellibeth0702
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 12:35amI apologize for coming off as hostile, I am just aggravated that so many people have so little faith in the youth. I’ll have you know CARERRA, though you are so apt to attack me, I actually had to look up what you are referring to, as it is just something I have seen people on this site refer to themselves as. I commend you for immediately seeking to belittle me and construe my words so poorly. I can sincerely say that I have been called far worse for my opinions, WITH the intention of using such terms. And the pro-life thing was a mistake of sorts. I personally could never kill another human being, but that does not mean that I would disagree with another person making the decision to do so. So I am pro-choice, but even more so pro-sex education. I may be 19 but I have seen more in my life-time than many people over the age of 21. You cannot gauge a person’s maturity or ability to make decisions based on their age, it is experience that matures you. And you say to focus on what I CAN do. I CAN go to college and I CAN become a teacher, as is the path I am taking now. At least I was confident I could do that before my state decided that education was the first place to be cut when a defecit arose. I now work 3 jobs in order to put myself through school because my grants were cut. I just barely find the time to do all that I need to. I agree that it will be fulfilling to meet my goals if I can hold out with such a strenuous schedule, but who’s to say what state our economy is going to be in by the time I am finishes. If most oif the republicans on the scene had a choice, there would be a reprisal of laissez-faire economics. If that happens, by the time I get out of school there may not be enough money in the budget to hire teachers. Where will I be then? I will have a degree in History and Education, but nowhere to use either of them. I am sorry to say that within the next 2 years I doubt I will have some major life-changing epiphany that will turn around everything I believe in. I am tired of just living in the now, I want a leader that will try to focus on the future because the future is really all we have. Luckily for you, I did not meet the age cut-off to vote this past election. The next one I will. I can assure you that the 21 year old me will vote based on the same views the 18 year old me would have. If President Obama goes for re-election, and his opponents are either Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, I don’t even need to see a campaign, I can cast my ballot right now. And it’s not due to party lines either. Based on the beliefs I listed in my previous comment, I’m sure you can see that my views do not align with the “Moral Majority” nor do they dwell within the realm of the NRA or small government.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 11:01am@ELLI
I knew that ” I’m pro-life” comment had to be a typo. (See? Older people ARE smarter than you.) You sound like WAY too huge of a lib to take a stand against OTHER people murdering their unborn babies. Concerning the rest of your post, I don’t have enough time in my busy day to respond to all of it. Suffice it to say that you sound like a whining sophmore,i.e., (paraphrase) “I’m only 19, but I have SOOO much wisdom. Alas, tha “man has kept me down.” If you don’t know what I mean, look up the literal definition of sophmore. I don’t believe for one second that you hold down three jobs and go to college. My guess is that you, like most liberals, live off of other people’s money.
Here‘s HG12’s stand on abortion, even though nobody asked: It should be required by federal law that any women who “chooses” to murder her unborn baby, must also, at the same time, receive a full hysterectomy. This would, as President Obama wishes, minimize the number of abortions performed, wouldn’t you say? Abortion’s silver lining: Fewer liberals.
Report Post »ellibeth0702
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 6:09amHuckabee Gingrich 12, you are literally the MOST RUDE person I have ever encountered. The reason I am pro-choice is because, though I personally do not agree with it, it is not my place to impose MY OWN beliefs on others. If someone wants to face eternal damnation for whatever they want to do, that is their choice. Who is the government to be involved in such a personal matter? You are all about a non-intrusive government, yet you want the government to gain ownership of our uterus’? I will not standby and watch anybody be figuratively raped by the government just because of their own selfish projections of their religious beliefs. Things can be done to make sure that far, far less people feel the need to engage in such an action– but alas none of you seem very apt to cut the problem off at the root and promote sex ed. I also seem to hold a better understanding of the word “sophmore” as I seem to know that the correct spelling of the word is sophomore, and the way that you are using it, i.e. as a noun, does not portray the same connotation that I believe you were looking to achieve. I believe that I am correct in assuming that your mission was to make me look childish and inexperienced, but it’s very hard to tell when such a distinguished and wise person misuses the term as to make me out to purely be someone in the second year of a scholarly endeavor. As for the 3 jobs, I will have you know that I do uphold all three: I tutor elementary aged kids for 15 hours a week, and work at two major retailing stores for the rest, including graveyard shift hours and a managerial position in one. On top of a 5-class schedule, I can assure you that my time is very well budgeted and that I work very hard. I am not too proud to admit though, I do have help from my mother and for that I am thankful every day of my life. Please go take your ageist agenda elsewhere for I will not be a “victim” to it. The reason that I am so “whiny” is that I have already seen people in the situation I described, with a degree and no job prospects. You would think that education would be an area that would not participate in as many cut backs as it does, but unfortunately the truth hurts. Why should I have to spend my money to earn a different degree, one that may not earn me the same level of satisfaction in life, when the should be a path that enables me to do what I really want? I am only going to live one life, and I refuse to be unhappy in it. That is my discontent– you can call it whining all you want, but that should be the gold standard.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 8:56pmOooh, ya got me! I misspelled sophomore, but, I have a better understanding of the meaning word than you do. It literally means “wise moron”, i.e., a kid with a chip on their shoulder who thinks they know it all. When you finally realize that older, more experienced people are wiser than you are, you’ll have made a HUGE leap forward. Don’t forget to vote November 3rd and tell all your commie friends!
Buh bye.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 10:25pm@ELLI
Report Post »Oops, forgot to throw this in:
If I‘m the rudest person you’ve ever encountered, you’re in for a very rude awakening and a devastating life. I’m actually a pretty nice guy, but I have little or no tolerance for arrogant SecularCommunistHumanistLiberalEvolutionistProgressives, i.e., SCHLEPs, like you.
ellibeth0702
Posted on October 3, 2010 at 12:02amObviously I don’t know it all, biblical connotations and obscure greek translations seem to be my downfall. I gave you no precursers to attack who I am AS A PERSON, this is what makes you so low in my opinion, and makes me not want to show you an iota of respectthat you don’t deserve. I initially engaged you on your hypocrisy concerning changing a voting regulation, never did I take a personal swipe at you. Maybe if you showed a little bit of this maturity you like to talk up, then you would realize that insults directed at the person you are bantering with themselves has absolutely NO PLACE in political discourse or argument. I was wrong to try to swipe back at you with the sophomore argument, but when someone plays dirty by insulting me, I do find myself incensed. I hope you can stick to the actual argument at hand instead of belittling myself personally for the rest of this: civility doesn’t hurt.
I am not arguing that the younger generation “knows it all” I am simply arguing against the disenfranchisement of a group of voters, based purely on people who believe that they infact know it all– don’t count out the youth as being unwise when you have no idea what they have personally gone through. Experience comes with age and these 18 year old’s have seen just that: 18 years. 18 years is a lot of time to see things that would form your beliefs. I am in no way saying that these kids have reached their full intellectual potential, but we are also not drooling and brainless followers. Your other stipulations are without backing as well. You are overlooking the military with many of your stipulations. If a person is old enough to go to war, they should be allowed to vote. I’d also say less that 10% of military personnel own their own homes. In 2 years, when I am out of school and ready for the workforce, if there isn’t a job for me, I’m not going to wallow and ask the gov. for money, I will make it work instead. Sure, it will definitely be a downer that I put myself into $20,000 in debt to get the degree, only to not be able to currently use it, but life goes on. Though many think this, the younger generation is not lazy- we are merely downtrodden by looking at the state of what the world is like now. If you were 18 again and you saw that people were struggling so much, even with advantages over you, how would you honestly feel? I am not a communist– In no way do I like what is in 1984, Brave New World, any Ayn Rand book, or the Comm. Manifesto– I am merely tired of groups with vast amounts of money screwing over everyone else and not spending money wisely. BP cared more about stocks and shareholders to the point that it would overlook basic safety and performance regulations, just to cut the corner and have that much more money in their empire (money from many of the consumers in our nation). British company, but huge negative effects for an already battered American region. Maybe if the person in charge of the american station that this occured at had taken a stand and made sure ALL necessary maintenance had been taken care of, then we would not be in this situation. Maybe if for 8 years tax cuts weren’t implemented to hide a lack of wise domestic spending, we wouldn’t be playing catch-up now. My mother is a republican who shares the same liberal “moral” (not saying we are literally liberal with our morals, just using the term to refer to us being, pro-choice, pro-gay, etc…) beliefs as I, but aligns herself as a republican. I vote based on the candidate and whether or not they fit what I want. End of story. In 2004, I supported Bush to continue on as president because I did not think Kerry would have been able to lead us in war time. I did not like McCain because he did not support reform, merely cuts. “Cut porkbarrel spending”. That was it. No, re-examining existing areas to see how they can operate better– it was, if it don’t work, get rid of it. A lot of that needed to happen, but a ton of areas that may have been cut may have just needed a bit of reform. I also did not like his international policy as much as Obama’s; I thought that McCain came off hostile, something I was tired of hearing the U.S. portrayed as. I didn’t want to be in Iraq forever (fig. of speech), which is what McCain was advocating. I believe we should have stayed a bit longer, but definitely not as long as McCain was advocating. McCain rarely mentioned education, another down fall. Comprehensive healthcare was mentioned more as a rebuttal to Obama than an actual agenda. My ballot this year was not selected by party, but by me going through and researching each candidate, ignoring party offiliation, and including negative & positive portrayals. I have previously said that I think the key to a good government is balance, so when I saw that 3 of the candidates I selected were subsequently republican, I did not bat an eyelash. For my previous comment on voting now for president, the same can be said. I can respect the republican platform, just not many of the people who champion for it. I think Palin was chosen to pull in the female vote, but she thinks that she was pulled in for merit, giving her the qualifications to run now. Huckabee is the candidate that sticks outs, but I wasn’t a fan of him in the last election (creationism and allowing too much god in politics tends to throw me off. my god, or your god may not be the same as everyone else’s god, and the president is meant to be representative of all of his/her constituents), so I’d have to see his stance on everything 2 years from now. As of right this second though, I would pick Obama over him because of the balance I have previously mentioned.
Report Post »ellibeth0702
Posted on October 3, 2010 at 12:18amAgain with the personal swipes. Please, dig your hole deeper. I AM NOT A COMMUNIST. I am not stupid enough to think that EVERYONE needs to be equal. I just think that social darwinism, in it’s context towards the early days of big business basically being used today is straight up dumb. The SEC is in place for a reason, so obviously the “free-market” is regulated. I just think that when these people have so much money, they find loopholes allowing them to cheat and steal their way to elite status. There are poor people who can’t feed themselves and Oprah gets a million dollar pedicure. This is the double standard I hate. These people with their mass amounts of money spend it on garbage. No family of 4 NEEDS a 17 room house. Nobody NEEDS a car collection as large as Jay Leno’s. Nobody even arguably needs a car collection. I just wish that people would see that when the people at the top are so greedy for money, then hold onto it merely to create an empire, that money is basically just sitting around, instead of being part of the capitalist system. Money is finite, therefore when any percentage of it is in a lock-up of sorts, it IS NOT in the capitalist system. America invented most of the items that foreign markets have luxurized. Do you think these people spend their money on good old american innovation, or german fine-tuning? So these people either hold on to their money, or throw it at foreign countries. Either way, those people at the bottom are not so prepared to participate in the international market by any means.
Report Post »RightWingKookTank
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:26pmOf COURSE he’d support it. It would just be awful for him to NOT support something the unions (& every other America-hating, left-wing organization in the country) are a part of. They may begin to believe he isn’t REALLY on their side.
LOL
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:33pmthe restore sanity rally is not the same as the one mr. beck spoke of on his show yesterday.—-this is more of a stunt. but, seriously, what is wrong with sanity?
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 10:36pmum they are talking about a differnt rally there happens to be two rallys one that the president also supports for the commies and liberals and progressives so they can trash the mall, and stewarts at the end of october making fun of the tea party and im guessing also to poke at the 10 2 rally, but im not sure if the mall will still be there after the scurge of our nation shows up on 10 2 and trashes the place
Report Post »PeachyinGA
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:09pmSo…. if this rally is to RESTORE sanity, we can only assume that for very nearly half of Obama’s presidential reign there has been insanity. Tell me, is the insanity STILL Bush’s fault? Just wondering what the statue of limitations are for blaming Bush?
Report Post »staythecourse
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:10pmThese kids look a little distanced from what mr. Obama is saying. Might there be hope that a younger generation than the ones on the college campuses might see thru him for what he is….an old radical, impressed with himself, and someone who is only pretending to be interested in “we, the people”. It really doesnt look like he knows how to connect with kids this age.
ishka4me
Posted on September 29, 2010 at 11:25pmthis almost seems like it was conceived by soros, the unions, emanual and axlerod, but to come out through stewart.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:12amButcher, you being a proud, professed Athiet can never understand that t5he 8/28 event was NOT a political one but a spiritual one: it bought togethyer people of many faiths all dedicated to recognizing that God is the source of our rights and liberties and our great protector to turn to in these troubled days. I understand to an athiest this is insanity so… ????
Report Post »Joseph_Plumb_Martin
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:26amMRB,gold doesn’t sell as well with sanity
N37BU6
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:40amSign the petition (link is below he video) to have Jon debate Glenn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HKTqJkTPow
This is at least the 5th story about Stewart talking trash… call his bluff.
Report Post »TRUTHSEEKINGAL
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:43amHopefully we will begin to restore sanity on November 2nd !
henryclay
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:51amThe 10/30 rally isn’t the 10/2 comrade rally…
I think Stewarts rally will be a laughing one..I do not align with his political stances but he is comical and I laugh.I won‘t attend and this rally doesn’t bother me…more power to them.
Maybe bad B.O. thinks Stewart is funny..
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:49amI wonder.. did the president endorse the 8/28 rally. You know… a rally to restore HONOR to America? Seems to me that’s a greater cause to support than a so called rally restoring sanity.
Report Post »But where was BO to be found back then?
ellibeth0702
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:10amI am so confused by this response. I am a liberal, and a rather devoted one, yet I love America. I HATE the divide and the ignorance that is prevalent here, but not one cell in my body has hatred for this country. Quote me on this, I think Democracy is stupid, I think Capitalism is stupid, I think Socialism is stupid, and I think complete Liberalism is stupid. That being said, I believe that the adoption of a hybrid of all of those concepts (maybe some less than others, especially that last one) would be the smartest move America were to ever make. It is ignorant to categorize the nation’s institutions in such a way as to hurt the people– and that means any of the people. Capitalism usually hurts those with less money, and Socialism hurts those with more; that’s why merging the two together and finding some balance would even the ratio of the benefit to either class. Most people balk at anything that is not the status quo and I believe that is like a cancer growing throughout this wonderful nation that was founded on freedom, yet now ruled by hate-mongering and exclusion. Other countries employ socalistic tendencies throughtout and thrive in certain areas, yet fail in others– we can use their example to implement more wise calculation and planning. I also whole-heartedly believe that the political parties are another form of the checks-and-balances system. To let one lead for too much time– and yes I’m talking to you republicans– would be a very dangerous thing. We just came out of an 8 year period of laissez-faire economics and big-stick policy international involvement- now in order to maintain the balance, we need to focus on recovering those who watched as the money they could have earned was mailed express into the pockets of the middle east oil regimes. That’s not to say that Obama or any democrat should be in power forever, I’m just saying that for the sake of balance, “shut up and wait your turn!”. You can’t keep fixing something that is broken with duct tape, sometimes it takes a new technique with the tape or a new part altogether..
Chet Hempstead
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:16am@N37BUG What makes you think Jon Stewart is the one who wouldn’t want a debate? I’ve seen him go head to head with guys like Bill O’Reilly and Mike Huckabee and hold his own. The only time I ever saw Glenn Beck appear on a show with anyone of an opposing viewpoint was on The View, and he didn’t do nearly as well.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:40amI’m sorry, but I could have sworn the 8/28 rally was for “the voices that weren’t being heard and by the people who expect common sense and courtesy in their daily lives”, and exemplify that. Maybe someday they will pull their heads out of the sand (or other orifices).
Report Post »Eagle07
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:04amWhy shouldn’t he his whole administration is a joke.
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:24amImam Obama also is going on vacation with Hugo Chavez. Our prez is more concerned with basketball and comedians and does not realize how import the real issues are in this country, Oh Oh he actually does, This is his way of working around the sleepers in this country while he steals their liberty
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:04am@Grandmaof5: Is SAND an alternative orifice?
Report Post »8/28 was not about what you said but was about people trying to turn back to God. People making personal efforts and commitments to restore the honor from within.
CoFX
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 11:13am@ Elizabeth – thanks for your post. I understnd your position, but you call for a hybrid of governing systems as the best way to achieve stability. That is what the current administration has enacted currently, and has resulted in a stagnant economy. You can’t mix capitalism with socialism – you have to choose one or the other. What you are seeing now in Europe is an example of a hybrid system – these countries are collapsing economically. If you are looking to a hybrid system to as you say “even the ratio of benefit” to the uper and lower classes, socialism is your vehicle of choice. It is imposible to create a one class society of all middle class citizens without complete government control over all aspects of your life.
Also , you mention that we are ruled by hate-mongering and exclusion these days. This is typical of any nation moving from capitalism toward socialism. The upper and middle class lash out because they are worried about losing their livelyhood and the government taking away thier freedoms. The lower class lashes out because they want to be elevated and don’t believe they have yet been given thier fair share of the pie and feel like victims of the system. What you are witnessing is not Republican vs. Democrat, it is a clash of idealogical principles.
There are idiots in DC on both sides of the isle currently, and we all know that. Our political system has been broken for far too long. However, I will contend that Capitalism and Democracy is what made this country great – rising from a newly founded nation to the world’s greatest nation in less than 200 years. We have definitely lost our way, but why would you follow any other system of governing, when the principles of governing our nation was founded on work so well? History will tell you that Socialist nations, or other similar governing styles, limit freedoms, strangle prosperity, and lower the standard of living for all people in the nation.
If we even the playing field for all citizens of the United States, we aren’t talking about simply knocking the rich off thier pedestal and redistributing thier wealth, we are talking about lowering the standard of living for everyone to an overall average, distributed amongst the entire population. That means that middle class America will undergo huge redistribution as well to raise up the lower class. To give an example, in 2009, the median income for an American household (2 working adults, 2 children on average) was right at $50,000 per year. If you are below $25,000 a year individually, or if you are unemployed, you get a great deal – if you are above $25,000 a year, you give up your share and give it to others who are less fortunate. If that doesn’t seem fair, then you use your hybrid system, where the high end earners are taxed more, but where exactly do you draw that line? Where is your incentive to work harder? If you go get a college education, earn more, and you are making, say $100,000 a year in your household, why should you be penalized because you are above what the government determines as the average?
It’s all or Nothing Elizabeth. You either have to give people incentive to be successful and to grow the economy through creating jobs, rewarding hard work, and rewarding people for their contribution to society, or you redistribute the wealth and let the government take care of you – where you will get the same monthly check from the government as your neighbor who doesn’t work because he still gets paid no matter what he does.
Report Post »SeasonOfChange
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:13pmWell, what do you expect, Obama is terrified of Beck and Stewart in enamored with him. Therein lies the love/hate relationship. I just can’t understand why for the life of me that these fools are all just in favor of trashing over 200 years of success and prosperity in favor of something that has never worked at any point in history. Something that has made us the envy of the world in technology and advancements is bad but something that has failed miserably in every instance is good. If the intellectual arrogance wasn’t enough, now the arrogance spreads and they think they can do communism right? They think they can do socialism right? C’mon! Wake up!
By the way, the so-called “have’s“ that are apparently pitted in opposition to the ”have-nots”, it is called work! This 10-2 rally is a farce! If people in this country had an ounce of integrity or character left they would be happy with an honest living and celebrate those who make it. Instead we demonize and villify them despite the good they bring to our communities in jobs, incomes, innovations, etc. No one is entitled to something they didn’t earn through smart business choices or good old fashioned elbow grease. “Entitlements” and a lack of personal responsibility coupled with a total disregard for our fellow man and our communities will be the downfall of our entire society.
It pains me to say it but we will have the exact government we deserve. We will have the exact society that we deserve. We have been content for far too long to sit back and not be involved in the education our kids receive, the actions of our politicians, the direction of our country, the behavior of our CEO’s, etc. Bonuses for companies that aren’t profitable is rediculous! Profit at all costs is not acceptable. We need a higher value on what is right instead of what is politically expedient.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 2:16pmElizabeth, thanks for bearing your thoughts and soul. IMO, what you ask for is found in the United Order. This is the econmic system that Mormoinism seeks. I rthink you’ll find it fascinating given what you said.
Report Post »lillymckim
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 3:15pmwhat a thin skinned little man- child we have in this White House… my God …who voted for this man and what have you done to us?
Report Post »ellibeth0702
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:26pmThank you COFX for your really thought out and wise reply. Sad to say, when I posted something like this elsewhere, the same is not to be said. I guess I will try to kind of paint a picture for you of what I mean. The key issue we have now is the economy, as it is all encompassing. I say we keep the fundamentals of capitalism, allowing for a free market, but choose to implement some regulations to ensure that major companies that hold the bulk of the nation’s wealth are using their money in a way that will help the people, not just the few on top. This means less salary increases and generally just blowing the money like it’s nothing when there are people in the nation who are starving. I believe that a certain percentage of nation-wide conglomerates should be made to remedy any errors in function before the need for any sort of bail-out is even thought of. I don’t agree with the bailouts, and though the world of economics is a very fast paced one, I would stake my life on the fact that there were precursors to the major housing and economic meltdown. I also do not really agree with hand-outs to anyone, but that being said, there are so many hard-working people who are down and out that are being lost in the sea of unemployment. These people participated in the capitalist system, but were not rewarded for their hard-work– In fact, their work ethic had nothing to do with their job loss. Due to technological advances, we are basically now dealing with the repercussions of transforming away from a manufacturing society, so there needs to be some sort of program to help the people transform to help them be better equipped to play in this new arena. Unemployment is a truly great program for us today. Like it or not, there are more unemployed people than there are jobs and those jobs that are open are usually beyond the skill-set that many of those unemployed possess. Unfortunately, there are people that take advantage of the system, but looking past that, there are some that, not to sound over-dramatic, could possibly die without the assistance. So although we are a country of people that have supposedly been given the tools to flourish, by way of our economic system, unfortunately that is not always the case. I think there needs to be some sort of regulation in the free market. Yes, that seems paradoxical, but unbridled capitalism mixed with the greed of some people within it has become a cancer to our economic system. We need to find a way to place some sort of quick money-making scheme in place, whether it be a tax like the one in D.C. (maybe on big tobacco? Lord knows it kills enough people to warrant some form of karma) or it be a regulation that makes large companies place some of their generous wealth back into the money market to possibly help those smaller businesses that are gasping for air. Anything that would keep our economy from just funnelling any wealth we gain straight to overseas markets or into the pockets of the already well-off. The government is in place to help us, but it’s implementation and involvement is something that should roll with the times. Now just may be a time where government needs to be bigger. I am tired of sitting and waiting for the economy to do better on it’s own, it‘s like waiting for a person on death’s door to be revived without medical aid. After the economy, I believe that people need to recognize that education is the most important issue, as it has been place don the backburner far too long. We also need to find a way to pay for these healthcare initiatives. My mother is a 26 year Air Force veteran and I have the benefit of still falling under her health insurance benfits. The military if you examine it, is essentially a well oiled socialistic machine: heatlthcare, housing, and pay are all generalized. As someone with a pre-existing health issue (it does not even affect my daily life!) that would leave me either black listed, or forced into the poorhouse due to high premiums, I most ardently support the health-care bill. Though you all may not have a condition, why should I be thrown under the bus because I do? Hasn‘t anybody heard the asying it’s better to be safe than sorry?
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 11:26pmellibeth0702- I think you are talking about a “centrist” form of government called the Third Way? That is a mix of socialism and communism, which focuses on localized government. People can’t own their homes, they pay a lifetime lease to the government, which they can’t pass down to their children. My interpretation is that this socialism with a capitalist flair makes a few elite have a whole lot of power while the rest of society reduced to serfdom. It is a very utilitarian framework, where you must earn your keep or be of no further value, since you aren’t able to accumulate for retirement or such. It is as if the failings of communism sparked a light bulb with the uber-elite who look to the franchise framework of corporations. You get the illusion you are your own boss, because you work your rear off for whatever you make, paying such high taxes (license fees), that you are nothing more than cheap labor with a vested interest in survival. (Talk to Quiznos managers). I am not an expert on the matter, but I understand it relies on unions and employee stakeholder/ownership, which is earned or lost. Since wealth cannot be accumulated, the next generation is prepared for this workforce-oriented society in their parents footsteps. If set up, while very controlled, there would not be an abundance of freedoms. From what I have seen from their writings, it sounds more like communism without the overhead that always sinks the system, higher on the “what you put in” end than “what you receive”. Not sure that is any better than USSR. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
The “collective” replaces the individual; conformity replaces the celebration of self. We will come to miss the humanists, when universal good always trumps rights. If you have an example where this is working, please educate us. I suggest that we don’t volunteer to be the guinea pigs.
Report Post »ellibeth0702
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 1:04amTexas, there is your issue right there, you are trying to define an institution and make it abide by every single one of it’s facets. I’m saying to take a little bit from each, that doesn’t mean take away the identity of the people; I’ve read 1984, I’m not saying to go in that direction. Whenever anybody suggests regulation, people go in a tizzy and cry “red”. I am in no way saying that EVERYTHING needs to be standardized. The big picture issue is that we have people at the top with mass amounts of money, and people at the bottom with not a cent to their name. Money doesn’t just appear, it circulates throughout, so it’s safe to say that that money at the top is money that those at the bottom do not have. Is it so bad to be a little charitable? I took a girl I babysit to the mall foodcourt once and we were approached by a woman, who was obviously homeless and obviously handicapped, asking for money. I immediately gave the woman money. I don’t care if using the foodcourt was a way just to make money, I ‘d like to believe she used it for food. The little girl balked and demanded, in a loud voice, why I would give my money to a “stinky homeless loser”. She then proceeded to throw a hissy fit demanding I spend my own money on her. This is the paradox: People yearn for money to buy “wants”, when they don’t understand there are people desperately in “need”. I do understand that she is a little girl, but I know for a fact her parents felt the same way and that many other do as well. So why not create funds to help those less fortunate? They would have to meet criteria and maintain certain standards. Those companies can then receive tax cuts for doing so and then there will be a whole force of people ready to work in our new age and stage of industry? I’m not saying that is the solution, I’m just brainstorming. I live in a place where the homeless are a very major issue and unfortunately the local state government doesn’t really have any funding to help the people here– With 3 jobs, I still can barely afford to live on my own here. Research the cost of living in Hawaii, it’ll blow your minds. And those of you who call red state/blue state look at who is currently governor.
Report Post »slickmeister
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 8:34amPersonally I can’t wait for this horde to descend on Washington. Nothing like bringing out his lunatic fringe supporters to expose what Dear Leader’s agenda is really all about.
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 9:25amellibeth0702, I believe that when the system takes care of folks, people feel they are already giving and stop being charitable. Besides, their ability to give goes down dramatically when taxes become so high. Then, you are giving to things you don’t believe in, like abortion and other social issues. I don’t know if there is any kind of study available to compare the amount conservatives (predominately Christian) give verses liberals- but I believe that conservatives give a whole lot more. It is part of our belief system. Occasionally, political figures’ giving is released and the comparison between candidates supports what I am saying. When people feel they are sustained by the government, they become dependent and it is abused. Also, the level of responsibility one feels for their brother lessens, because it becomes the government’s problem at that point. Think of the homeless during the depression. They would knock on doors and ask if there was any work they could do for a plate of food. They would do the work. And people would pour out abundantly to help them. Now, if you see a “will work for food” it may be a joke because I know my brother has often said, “hop in my pickup and I’ll take you to the crew if you really mean it”- never any takers. My point is that dependency makes us weak and hardens our hearts towards others who are now someone else’s problem. But with the new 3rd Way style, dead weight won’t be tolerated as well. The Soviet Union collapsed (just like Cuba is), trying to carry all that dead weight. That won’t happen again. That is why what they appear to be putting together is some sort of Serfdom or peasant lease-holder system like the 3rd Way. Don’t think that freedoms we surrender will ever be found again. They won’t.
However, on a good note, they cannot take our soul. Jesus Christ is the only real answer.
Report Post »cruisemates
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 11:25amCAPITALISM is the best economic model ever created. The problem stems from people who don’t understand it.
The fallacy of non-believers is that there is a limited amount of money in the world – NOT TRUE. Economy thrives on activity. America is the wealthiest nation because we work and SPEND – we keep money in circulation. One $ is one dollar, but if it gets spent 100 times instead of 10, then our GDP is 100 dollars.
The stock market is the best way to make money ever – it is public ownership of formerly private companies. I bought shares in Apple three years ago and tripled my investment. I Love capitalism.
Bush is blamed for a bad time when Wall Street made a mistake (spurred by government) and got caught up in mortgage derivatives which created a housing bubble that burst. So, now my house is worth what it was in 2004, Big deal.
The tech bubble of 1997-2000 was strong enough to give our govt. a surplus and make Clinton (un deservedly) look like a genius. Millions of people became millionaires during that tech “bubble” That is American capitalism at its best, abd it is a beautiful thing. It is about individual initiative.
The only problem is our education not teaching kids how to understand and appreciate capitalism. But once you “get it” you see it is an ingenious system with nothing better. Learn it, get involved and love it. There are REASONS why America is the wealthiest nation on earth still, even though we produce little now. It is our economic system CREATING wealth. Not exploiting, not stealing, creating.
Report Post »cruisemates
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 11:55amBar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed
quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’sbill by roughly the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!“ ”Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got“ ”That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night, the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 2, 2010 at 12:25am@CRUISEMATES
Report Post »Are you claiming authorship of that “Barstool Economics” piece? It happens to be all over the internet. You didn’t provide a link or acknowledgement, so I can only conclude that either you are the author of this clever illustration, or, you‘re a dishonest plagiarist trying to impress us all with analogical prowess that you don’t possess. I’d wager the latter, and if I’m right, you‘re no better than the ******** that you’re attempting to educate. But hey, you can copy and paste well.